Spoilers

This subreddit is (nearly) unrestricted territory. If you have not seen all or most of Trek, browse at your own risk. However, any newly released material and upcoming material should be marked as spoilers for one month following its release and kept out of thread titles. Feel free to mark entire threads as containing spoilers in the title, to eliminate the need for inline tags within that post.

To create spoiler code, type code in this format. Everything inside the square brackets will be blacked out:

[Spoiler Description](#s "Spock dies at the end of The Wrath of Khan!")

As we call know, the Prime Directive specifically prohibits interference with the internal development of alien civilizations pre-warp. The Prime Directive, or hints of this, were teased in TOS, but really hit their stride in TNG and later series, often serving as a primary component in many of the episodes.

So why was this concept introduced? I'd like to propose and discuss a theory. Ever since the 1960s, the world has been trying very hard to identify alien civilizations through programs such as the Voyager series of probes, the large number of radio telescopes performing the SETI function, etc. All of which has resulted in zero evidence of alien civilizations. Because of this lack of progress in detecting that we are not alone in the universe, and because Star Trek has been, and continues to be, a beacon of hope for a much-improved future, the developers of Star Trek introduced the Prime Directive, to explain why alien civilizations have not made contact with us or made their existence known...we're not ready so that's why we see no evidence of them.

This is a great way to reconcile the hopeful future of Star Trek with the complete lack of any serious evidence of alien civilizations.

I see the Prime Directive as a sort of reaction to Western imperialism and colonialism from 1492 through the 1960's. We could argue about continued imperialism, but I'm drunk and not in the mood. The Prime Directive, as shown in TOS, is noble and I think the correct thing to do. It's purpose is to prevent the Federation and Starfleet from involving themselves in situations to the detriment of the natives. But it's not absolute. Kirk has no problem diverting an asteroid to save Preserver seeded Indians, and Spock himself says that it is better to change people than to allow their extinction.

No, it's not until TNG and later that we see the callus disregard for life that characterizes later implementations of the Prime Directive. Riker openly treats the "natural" course of events as some sort of all-knowing god. Picard doesn't want to involve the Enterprise in saving a planet of people who will be killed through no fault of their own. Janeway refuses to warn people of their impending, preventable destruction despite Tom Paris pointing out that the consequences would have to be better than extinction. This, this disgusting disregard for sapient life is what gives the Prime Directive a bad name.

As originally instituted, the Prime Directive was a noble thing, to prevent our influence from destroying alien civilizations, intentionally or not. As it became in TNG and later, its an excuse for allowing the deaths of billions or more of sapient lives. The Prime Directive was not instituted to allow the uninterrupted function of an uncaring universe, it was instituted to protect less technological civilizations from the potentially damaging interference of more sophisticated civilizations.

This post reminds me a lot of Chuck Sonnenburg's views on the Prime Directive through SF Debris. Are you a fan, or is this just a brilliant independent deduction? Here's a video where he discusses his viewpoints, largely influenced by the ENT episode "Dear Doctor," which he thinks is one of the worst episodes of Star Trek for any series.

I really like this video. I particularly like the comparison to a doctor discovering a cure for AIDS and not releasing due to his belief that "nature" has selected it to control the gay population. Something obviously abhorrent which shows the bankruptcy of the Prime Directive as shown on TNG.

Indeed, it's why I so often tire of the notion that the Prime Directive in some way preserves the "natural" order of things. "Natural" is in the eye of the beholder, and Star Trek seems to have defined it as "pre-warp." Certainly, humanity's current definition of natural would be different; indeed, "natural" often seems to simply mean "not like us." Which, while seemingly exclusionary, is actually an incredibly anthropocentric point of view.

Humans are as natural as any other species. Why is the development of warp drive not "natural"? Did humanity have help? No! A man, subject to the forces of nature, developed this thing called warp drive. Humans are a species evolved from other natural species--why is it that as soon as technology enters the mix, it's no longer natural?

The notion that we should let a genocide occur to preserve the natural order reminds me of the old joke about the devout Christian who refuses to accept rescue from a boat, a helicopter, and so forth, then arrives at the pearly gates and says "God, I had faith in you. Why didn't you save me?" To which God replies, "I sent a boat and a helicopter!"

It is a good video...something I just noticed in the 'Dear Doctor' episode (I was doing a rewatch) and it seems like Phlox is using Denobulan ethics, and Archer never really explains why he decides to go along with it even though he initially is committed to curing the Valakians. It's tough for me to reconcile why he made such an about-face.

Maybe if we ditch the Prime Directive, then we here at the Daystrom Institute could come up with our own version...

I often said it's one of the worst episodes, if not disgusting in all of Trek. The writers of Star Trek have a poor understanding of evolution and its workings anyway but Dear Doctor takes it to the next level as it uses eugenics to advocate genocide. All so they could try tying some proto-prime directive episode into ENT early in the run.

The Prime Directive was never a commentary about alien species not contacting the human race. It was a veiled critique on the U.S. involvement in Vietnam...a large powerful nation getting involved and trying to change the course of history in a small, 3rd world country.

Remember that television in the 1960s was very censored and so concepts, ideas, and social commentary was made through allusion and reference. Roddenbury and the writers of TOS were experts in doing this. Almost every episode has a social meaning applicable to that period of time.

Given that you didn't reference it, I guess you never watched ENT. A few notable decisions were made by Archer that showed such a policy needed to exist, though the specifics of those incidents escape me. Basically, he involved himself in alien affairs of pre-warp civilizations without any clear policy or strategy.

Looking through Memory Alpha quick, I find a good quote:

"Someday my people are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that tells us what we can and can't do out here; should and shouldn't do. But until somebody tells me that they've drafted that... directive... I'm going to have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God."

The mission that was referring to involved Archer refusing to help a civilization stave off imminent genetic collapse.

At the time Archer left Earth in 2151, it was clear no such policy existed, or had apparently been thought seriously about before that time. This likely also had to do with the problems of the limited speeds humanity could achieve before that point: there simply weren't many or any pre-warp civilizations nearby Earth. Once deep space exploration began, the need for such a policy became obvious.

Negligent genocide? It's not genocide to refuse to save an alien race from their own genetic death. What's more, the culture was pre-warp. The Prime Directive would have meant that Enterprise would have never contacted the planet in the first place, and they would not have helped that civilization.

That's not negligent genocide. A society doomed by genetics should die out. And saving that population would have doomed another rising civilization to their deaths. That wasn't negligent genocide, Archer made the right call.

That's not negligent genocide. A society doomed by genetics should die out.

Excuse me? What moral or ethical standard are you basing your statement here on? They should die out, why? Because nature has deemed it to be so?

This is one of the most textbook examples of a naturalistic fallacy that I have ever seen. It's almost breathtaking in its callousness and lack of an actual ethical or moral philosophy behind it.

The existence of an "is" does not remotely suggest the formation of an "ought". Simply because those people were dying from a genetic disease does not remotely suggest the conclusion that they should die from it.

Furthermore, they were not doomed by genetics, especially when their disease could have been (and in fact, was) cured through genetic engineering.

They were doomed because of a conscious decision made to deny them access to a cure, simply because by accident of development their society had not yet developed the necessary scientific knowledge to do so on their own.

This decision, that the lack of knowledge of how to help one's self implies that one should not be helped, is morally repugnant. It implies, for example, that a child who does not understand how to properly clean and dress a wound on their body should be left to die of infection.

If not for the suppressed sentient species, I would have been 1000% for saving these people, and forget any 'directives'. My problem is that Archer shouldn't pick one species over another for dominance on a given planet.

So what you're saying is that the more dominant species should have killed off the lesser one. Because that's the message you're spouting. "Don't try to peacefully coexist with other, less intelligent sapient life, wipe them out! Otherwise some colossal jackass will allow your entire species to die in their favor."

I don't believe I'm advocating genocide. The two species existed with one in the major role and one in the minor. That is perfectly fine, and encouraging. I don't believe our morality should be determined by guessing whether our species has a severe genetic issue that would cause extinction.

We, as humans, came into the situation with a set of facts to look at and a decision to make. To act, or to not act. Captain Archer decided that he would not make himself God over these people.

I can't say for sure he was right. It was meant to be something the viewer would struggle with, as we are doing right now. I respect your opinion. I simply feel that Archer could not in good faith make this kind of decision.

You've earned some leeway with a few solid posts in this thread, which is why this is a warning and not a ban. But your behavior here is simply unacceptable. This post violates rules #3 and #6 of our Code of Conduct: it is a personal attack on sstern88, and you seem to be carrying a vendetta against him elsewhere in this thread.

They developed a means of saving these people from their inevitable death, and then withheld it from them. I can think of no more disturbing act than doing so. Imagine if the West decided to withhold AIDS drugs from Africa because nature had selected them to die. It would be the worst crime imaginable.

A society doomed by genetics should die out

Imagine, if you will, a society somewhere on Earth that developed a unique genetic disease which will kill them all. Imagine that they share their land, peacefully, with a less intelligent species, let's say some Homo Florensiensis survived or something. And now you have a cure for their suffering. It is not moral to withhold the cure from them because you thing that the Homo Florensiensis deserve to have a chance. You're killing sapient beings by your inaction. Archer is worse than Hitler from this perspective. He certainly killed far, far more people. People no different than you or me.

The comparison only ever works if one person, with malice decides to brutalize, torture, and systematically murder an entire people. Not just by inaction, but by deliberate action.
Do you really believe that is what's happening here?

Inaction is the same as taking harmful action in this case. Archer has become the greatest mass murderer (specifically negligent homicide) in human history by withholding lifesaving treatment.

If your doctor decided that you weren't worthy of lifesaving treatment, you'd no doubt call it murder. This is no different. Hell, Archer is more culpable than your doctor would be, because he doesn't have to do anything but release the treatment to them.

I wanted these scenes from the show in here for people to be able to accurately judge:

PHLOX: Trouble sleeping, Captain?
ARCHER: Looks like I'm not the only one.
PHLOX: Actually, Denobulans require very little rest, unless you count our annual hibernation cycle.
ARCHER: Am I going to be without my doctor this winter?
PHLOX: Only for six days.
ARCHER: Maybe I'll join you. Any progress?
PHLOX: The research has been challenging, to say the least.
ARCHER: A cure, Doctor. Have you found a cure?
PHLOX: Even if I could find one, I'm not sure it would be ethical.
ARCHER: Ethical?
PHLOX: We'd be interfering with an evolutionary process that has been going on for thousands of years.
ARCHER: Every time you treat an illness, you're interfering. That's what doctors do.
PHLOX: You're forgetting about the Menk.
ARCHER: What about the Menk?
PHLOX: I've been studying their genome as well, and I've seen evidence of increasing intelligence. Motor skills, linguistic abilities. Unlike the Valakians they appear to be in the process of an evolutionary awakening. It may take millennia, but the Menk have the potential to become the dominant species on this planet.
ARCHER: And that won't happen as long as the Valakians are around.
PHLOX: If the Menk are to flourish, they need an opportunity to survive on their own.
ARCHER: Well, what are you suggesting? We choose one species over the other?
PHLOX: All I'm saying is that we let nature make the choice.
ARCHER: The hell with nature. You're a doctor. You have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering.
PHLOX: I'm also a scientist, and I'm obligated to consider the larger issues. Thirty five thousand years ago, your species co-existed with other humanoids. Isn't that correct?
ARCHER: Go ahead.
PHLOX: What if an alien race had interfered and given the Neanderthals an evolutionary advantage? Fortunately for you, they didn't.
ARCHER: I appreciate your perspective on all of this, but we're talking about something that might happen. Might happen thousands of years from now. They've asked for our help. I am not prepared to walk away based on a theory.
PHLOX: Evolution is more than a theory. It is a fundamental scientific principle. Forgive me for saying so, but I believe your compassion for these people is affecting your judgment.
ARCHER: My compassion guides my judgment.
PHLOX: Captain.
ARCHER: Can you find a cure? Doctor?
PHLOX: I already have.

ARCHER: Doctor.
PHLOX: Captain.
ARCHER: I'm going down to the Valakian hospital.
PHLOX: Sir, it would go against all my principles if I didn't ask you to reconsider what I
ARCHER: I have reconsidered. I spent the whole night reconsidering, and what I've decided goes against all my principles. Someday my people are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that tells us what we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until somebody tells me that they've drafted that directive I'm going to have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God.

PHLOX [OC]: I'd like to think, Doctor Lucas, that if I'd had the chance to talk to you face to face you'd have never let me even consider withholding my findings from the Captain. But I'm ashamed to say that I almost did just that.

[Valakian hospital ward]

ARCHER: Phlox tells me this medicine will help ease the symptoms for a decade, maybe more. A lot can happen in that time. I wouldn't be surprised if you developed a cure on your own.
ESAAK: And if we don't? With a warp capable starship, our chances would be greatly improved.
ARCHER: I'm sorry. (hands over PADD) This will give you detailed instructions on how to synthesize more of the medicine.
ESAAK: We appreciate everything you've done.

Your own attacks are immoral. To save that civilization would have doomed another to their deaths. You nor he had any right to decide which should live. In that case, the only true moral action is to refuse to act.

Bullshit. The other species, who's name I can't recall and don't care to look up, was not in danger of extinction at any point. That the dominant species didn't drive them to extinction, even on the verge of their own extinction, is incredibly telling. And since it was clear that they weren't going to die if the dominant species lived, it would be incredibly fucked up to sacrifice these people on the potential altar of this other species.

The problem in this episode was that the minor sentient species was being repressed by the major one. The major species had delayed its inevitable collapse, but had the Enterprise not encountered these people they would have died.

Archer was right not to pick one species over the other. Starfleet captains should not play god.

The problem in this episode was that the minor sentient species was being repressed by the major one

By the standards of one world sapient species, they really, really didn't. They let them live. And I'm sure if they had the chance, now that they know Archer sacrificed them to his false god, then they'd kill them without a thought.

Archer was right not to pick one species over the other. Starfleet captains should not play god.

Except that's exactly what Archer did. He chose for the one species to die and the other to not. And what's worse is that it wasn't even a choice between one or the other. It was a choice between genocide and coexistence! And your enlightened hero played god, and in his righteousness, struck down an entire species for no reason!

The rules of this sub are that you don't downvote just because you disagree. Would you mind please not downvoting everything I post? Also, using phrases like "It was a choice between genocide and coexistence!" might get you a few upvotes, but it has no basis in reality.

It should be noted that radio signals tend to degrade over the course of a few light years, so no, it's not a "Prime Directive" issue that's preventing the detection of alien transmissions. It's just that it's not very likely that we'll be able to detect something.

I guess you could see it as a (hopeful) explanation of why we haven't had alien contact.

But the true reason it exists is to give the Federation character: its not an organization that will just screw over an entire civilization on a planet, just to get some resources. It shows that they have scruples.